1 | P a g e

Rethinking Surface Parking for Pedestrian Friendly

Office Development

2 | P a g e

The Canadian Urban Institute 555 Richmond Street West, Suite 402

P.O. Box 612, Toronto, Ontario, M5V 3B1

www.canurb.org

The Canadian Urban Institute is a Toronto-based not for profit organization with a

national and international reach. Through our work we seek to create a world of thriving,

sustainable, harmonious and engaged urban regions.

Authors and Researchers:

Glenn Miller, FCIP, RPP, Vice President of Education and Research

Katherine Morton, MCIP, RPP, Senior Planner, Education and Research

James Cole, Planning Assistant and Researcher, Education and Research

Adrienne Comars, Planning Assistant and Researcher, Education and Research

Victoria Prouse, Planning Assistant and Researcher, Education and Research

Aidan Whitely, Planning Assistant and Researcher, Education and Research

The Canadian Urban Institute is grateful for the support of the

Canadian Parking Foundation through its generous grants to

this research.

3 | P a g e

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION 4

The Challenge 5

The Actors 7

The Scale And Urban Context 8

FIVE STRATEGY AREAS FOR PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT 9

Reduce The Supply Of Parking 12

Better Parking Design 15

Reduce Parking Demand 17

Invest And Find Innovative Ways To Pay For High Density Parking Infrastructure 19

Manage Parking As A Long Term Asset 22

SELECTING THE OPTIMAL STRATEGIES 24

Individual Office Building 25

Office Park Or Cluster 25

Emerging Downtown 26

Established Downtown 26

CASE STUDIES 27

Tyson’s Corner, Virginia - Transforming A Business Park Into A Mixed-Use Downtown 27

Markham Centre – Moving From Surface To Structure 30

Downtown Vancouver – A New Breed Of Parking Challenges 32

CONCLUSIONS 33

APPENDIX 1: THE ACTORS 36

APPENDIX 2: THE SCALE AND URBAN CONTEXT 37

APPENDIX 3: REFERENCE LIST 38

APPENDIX 4: IMAGES 42

4 | P a g e

Introduction The automobile has an important role to play in the urban

transportation system. As a result, parking is an essential

piece of infrastructure in the built environment. Yet, cities are

continually challenged to find ways of integrating parking into

their fabric that are efficient, compact, attractive and

ecologically sensitive. A key reason for this is that structured

parking and/or underground parking is extremely expensive

to construct and maintain and as a result large areas of

surface parking prevail.

City builders are particularly challenged when it comes to

creating higher density parking options in association with

commercial developments. This is largely explained by land

economics that do not typically support underground or

structured parking – one of the prerequisites for locating

office buildings sufficiently close together to create a critical

mass of pedestrian activity capable of supporting retail and

rapid transit. In response, city builders are starting to adopt

more proactive approaches to tackling this challenge and are

using parking as a strategic tool in city building. They are

showing a willingness develop partnerships, create financing

options and take on both the economic risks and rewards

associated with building and managing their own parking

facilities. However, these efforts are most prevalent in a

downtown context and efforts remain slower and less

coordinated in the suburban office parks.

Therefore, this research aims to not only outline best practice

strategies to attract high density parking options that could

facilitate office growth, but also provides an overview on how

these strategies could be optimally applied in a range of

urban contexts (established downtowns, emerging

downtowns, office parks and individual developments). This

research also aims to illustrate the role and influence

individual stakeholders have in addressing this challenge

(municipalities, private developers, tenants and employees).

The strategies contained in this report are most powerful

when combined, so case studies have also been included to

provide insight on how these strategies can be effectively

integrated and implemented on the ground.

Additionally, to gauge the level of interest in adopting these best practice parking strategies, the

‘development community’ was surveyed via a series of interviews. Given this challenge is

largely present in a commercial context, for the purposes of this study, the development

Downtown Toronto’s east end in the

1970s

Downtown Toronto’s east end today

In the 1970’s downtown Toronto had

an over abundance of surface

parking. This land over time has been

reabsorbed and redeveloped into

mixed use communities with

commercial office development and

underground parking.

5 | P a g e

community comprised a sample of commercial and mixed use developers, commercial real-

estate brokers, transportation specialists and municipal staff. The feedback gained was

invaluable for this report to be able to develop strategies align and reflect market realities.

Overall, challenges associated with achieving higher density parking are complex and cannot be

viewed in isolation. Rather, these challenges are inextricably linked to broader city building

aims; intensifying commercial developments and reducing urban sprawl, building strong

downtowns and urban centres, enhancing the public realm, and providing the community with a

range of mobility options. As a result, city builders will benefit from seeing this challenge

holistically, working at various scales and with diverse stakeholders to adopt mutually

reinforcing land use, transportation and parking strategies to strengthen urban regions into the

future.

The Challenge City builders active in suburban municipalities

across North America are envisioning higher

density, pedestrian oriented and mixed use

urban centres, which replicate the conditions

that make traditional downtowns attractive to

residents, workers and visitors alike. Many

cities have been successfully moving toward

this vision, but this has been largely based on

attracting civic, cultural and educational

facilities, as well as high density residential

development. City builders remain challenged

when it comes to attracting high density office

development to growing urban centres. A key

reason for this is costs associated with

providing parking.

High density parking is at least 15 times more

expensive than surface parking. While

residential developments are typically able to

absorb these costs as condominiums can be

sold in advance to generate capital, the

economics do not support high density

parking for commercial developments. When

emerging downtowns and new urban centres

do manage to attract investment in

commercial office buildings, these buildings

are typically built with surface parking. This

not only limits the size of office building that

can be built (an increase in gross floor area

requires additional land dedicated to surface

Getting from this:

To this:

The Mississauga Downtown21 Master Plan is an

ambitious vision of transforming the city’s core into a

pedestrian oriented environment by enhancing

public transit and facilitating mixed-use

development. The remediation of surface parking lots

for a variety of uses will be championed by

underground and/or structured parking.

6 | P a g e

*High density parking is at least 15 times more expensive than surface parking. The costs associated

with both structured or under ground parking vary significantly based on the design qualities and the

materials used during construction, as well as geological conditions. For the purposes of this paper,

the initial capital costs have been averaged for the number of parking spaces in the facility to

determine the average cost of an above ground or underground parking facility.

parking) but can also limit the number of

office buildings that can be developed within

a designated centre. As well, office buildings

with surface parking create an unattractive

environment where the dominant visual

impression is a parking lot rather than an

attractive pedestrian ambiance.

Instead, office development is largely

focused in suburban office parks. These

single use office parks offer affordable land,

room to grow, and excellent highway access.

Yet accommodating vehicles in these

suburban office parks by building surface

parking lots leads to rapid absorption of finite

greenfield sites, limits opportunity for

intensification and restricts pedestrian

access. This leads to a series of further

challenges, as more office parks are filled

with low intensity development forms, office

and commercial space continues to sprawl

and because virtually all business activities

rely on access by car, levels of congestion

worsen at the regional level.

1 Surveyed a private developer to determine an average cost. This cost assumes standard landscaping treatments and surfaces.

2 Figure drawn from transportation expert at the City of Kitchener, based on estimates from RFP process

3 Kenaidan Website. 2011. Available: http://www.kenaidan.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=123&Itemid=247

4 Government of New Foundland Website. The Economy 2011- Inventory of Major Capital Projects. Available:

http://www.economics.gov.nl.ca/E2011/InventoryOfMajorCapitalProjects.pdf 5 Standard Staff. 2012. Carlisle St. garage opening Monday. Available: http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/2012/01/06/carlisle-st-

garage-opening-monday 6 City of Fredericton Website. 2011. New East End Parking Garage Opens to the Public. Available:

www.fredericton.ca/en/transportation/NR2011Mar25EastEndParking.asp 7 Figure drawn from transportation expert at the City of Kitchener, based on estimates from tendering process

8 Waterfront Toronto Website. 2012. York Quay Revitalization. Available:

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/explore_projects2/central_waterfront/york_quay_revitalization 9 Moneyville Website. 2012. This Toronto Parking Spot Costs 100,000 A Year. Available: http://www.moneyville.ca/article/1019589--

this-toronto-parking-spot-costs-100-000-a-year

Parking Type Cost ($) per

space* Average $

Surface Parking Lot

Developer Estimate1 ~$2,000 ~$2,000

Structured Parking

City of Kitchener Parking Facility

2

~$32,000

~$31,000 Mississauga Erindale GO Station

3

~$43,000

St John's Health Science Complex (hospital)

4

~$19,000

Underground and Structured Parking

City of St Catharines Parking Facility

5

~$46,500 ~$34,000

City of Fredericton Parking Facility

6

~$20,800

Underground Parking

City of Kitchener Parking Facility

7

~$58,000

~$60,000

City of Toronto Parking Facility

8

~$83,000

Toronto, underground parking space for new condominium

9

~$40,000

7 | P a g e

Therefore implicit to a more sustainable vision for urban growth is the creation of high density

parking options. Yet in the face of these economic challenges efforts will need to be supported

by proactive municipal leadership, regulations and expanded mobility options that work to

reduce parking demand. Efforts will also need to occur on a range of scales to both centralize

employment opportunities in emerging downtowns, but also enhance and strengthen suburban

office parks so they can remain resilient and continue to attract growth into the future.

The Actors The evolution of cities is immeasurably influenced by complex interactions between various

actors. Many small actions taken by individuals or organizations can add up to major impacts in

terms of the way cities are look, feel and function. For the purposes of this paper, the role that

municipality, developers, tenants and employees play is examined to determine how each

player can work to overcome some of the barriers associated with reducing areas of surface

parking and creating pedestrian oriented commercial environments.

A detailed description of each of these four actors, what drives them and the benefits

and challenges of moving towards pedestrian oriented development, is contained in

Appendix 1.

8 | P a g e

The Scale and Urban Context Cities are comprised or diverse neighbourhoods and development patterns. This research is

concerned with four urban scales, the individual office building or cluster, the suburban office

park, emerging downtowns and established downtowns. These urban contexts are described

below and will respond to a different combination of best practise strategies as they evolve.

A description of each of these four scales and contexts is contained in Appendix 2.

Urban Context Characteristics Image

These high density buildings are primarily accessible by automobile and have a large portion of their labour force commuting by car. This compounds the need for providing significant amounts of free car parking. Lower land prices make it more economical to provide this as surface parking rather than structured or underground parking.

Individual Buildings or Cluster – High

intensity building but only occupies a relatively small portion of the entire site.

Suburban office parks are generally characterized by wide roads, excellent access to highway/s, minimal transit options, single land uses (no residential development or other amenities) and increasing congestion issues. Edge Cities are characterized by having no determined or easily identifiable centre.

Suburban Office Parks – Single use, land

intensive with good highway access.

Emerging downtowns are generally characterized as the economic, cultural and social centre of their respective communities. Emerging downtowns often contain educational and cultural facilities, transit access, limited high density office, residential development and many large and relatively unconstrained development sites. Emerging downtowns are increasingly seeing parking being used as a strategic approach to city building.

Emerging Downtown - Mississauga City

Centre - Parking lots impact walkability.

Established downtowns are characterized as the primary centre of economic, social and cultural activity in a much wider urban region; as well as providing high density office space, high density residential development and accessible transit services. Office development often does not include underground parking, yet this is compensated by a wide range of access options. Commuters are accustomed to paid parking.

Established Downtown – Toronto

Financial District – In this context land is too valuable to support surface parking lots.

9 | P a g e

Five strategy areas for

pedestrian friendly

development The challenge of managing surface parking

cannot be viewed in isolation. Rather, this

challenge is inextricably linked to broader

city building aims; intensifying commercial

developments and reducing urban sprawl,

building strong downtowns and urban

centres, enhancing the public realm and

providing the community with a range of

mobility options. As a result, city builders

will benefit from seeing this challenge

holistically, working at various scales and

with diverse stakeholders to adopt mutually

reinforcing land use, transportation and

parking strategies.

In working towards solutions to this

challenge, city builders will benefit from

working in five key strategy areas to:

Reduce the supply of parking

Better parking design

Reduce demand for parking

Find innovative ways to pay for high

density parking infrastructure

Manage parking as a long term asset

1. Reduce the supply of parking

The municipality can develop regulations to

reduce parking supply, this would allow for

increased and more intense floor plates and

less area required for surface parking. The

best practices strategies examined include:

Parking Maximums and Parking Caps. The

municipality can also build or encourage

partnerships with or between the private

sector and other agencies to realize parking

reductions. The best practices strategies

examined include: Shared Parking.

2. Better parking design

Better design of parking facilities can reduce

the land area required to support parking,

as well as the aesthetic and ecological

contribution of the parking facility. Site

planning can also be highly effective in

achieving a positive design outcome and

allowing for future intensification of the site.

The best practices strategies examined

include: Parking Design Guidelines,

Reducing Stall Dimensions, Vegetating

Parking Lots and Site Planning.

3. Reduce demand for parking

The municipality, developers, tenants, and

employees all play a role in reducing the

demand for parking and moving people

towards alternative modes of transportation.

However, underlying this challenge is a

strong ‘car culture’ a real or perceived

reluctance to move away from single

occupancy vehicle trips and toward paid

parking. The best practices strategies

examined by this research include:

Transportation Demand Management

(TDM) strategies.

4. Find innovative ways to pay for high

density parking infrastructure

The municipality can play a key role in

developing financing tools that support

investment in underground or above ground

parking structures. The private sector also

has opportunities to generate parking

revenues. The best practices strategies

examined by this research include:

Municipal Capital Investment, Cash-in-Lieu,

TIF’s/TIEG’s and Pricing Parking.

5. Manage parking as a long term asset

The municipality has a key role in managing

parking structures to ensure parking

investments have potential to become

assets for the community or commercial

sector. The private sector could also

develop ways to finance its own parking

10 | P a g e

structures, by generating revenue from

parking supply. The best practice strategies

examined include: Parking Authorities and

Parking Pricing.

City builders can select strategies to

address these five strategic areas. City

builders may benefit from the following

approaches:

An integrated approach

Adopting a combination of strategies is

critical as research revealed that the above

strategies have modest individual impacts,

typically reducing parking requirements by

5-15%, but their impacts are powerful and

synergistic when combined.10 It is for this

reason that city builders must examine and

implement a combination of strategies, as

cumulatively these strategies can reduce

the amount of parking required at a

destination by 20-40% 11 , leading to all

manner of economic, social and

environmental benefits for urban centres.

The appropriate mix of strategies will differ

greatly between urban areas. Strategies will

need to be selected based on: the local

vision, local champions, parking occupancy

rates, levels of local investment, land prices,

level of vehicle ownership and alternative

travel mode availability.12

A practical and realistic approach

Transitioning from an automobile oriented

community to a pedestrian oriented

community is a long term process. It is

extremely challenging to reduce automobile

dependency when ample surface parking

remains available, limited transit is in place

10

Litman, Todd. 2011. Parking Management Strategies, Evaluation and Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Available: http://www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf. 11

Ibid 12

Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2007. Reforming

Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth. Available:

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/parking/parkin

g_seminar/Toolbox-Handbook.pdf.

and a strong car culture persists. Therefore

city builders must be realistic and practical

in achieving their ambitions and show

proactive leadership, ongoing commitment

to changing behaviour and investing in

alternative access options, flexibility,

supportive and responsive regulations, as

well as incremental investments in

integrated parking options.

A collaborative approach

Retrofitting low density office parks and

filling the gaps in emerging downtowns is a

major undertaking and will require high

levels of collaboration. Seeing the

emergence of more pedestrian oriented

neighbourhoods will be the result on many

incremental changes and investments over

a long period of time. The municipality

cannot do it alone, nor can the private

development sector. Innovative partnerships

between the public and private sector and

ongoing dialogue between all stakeholders

and the community at large will be crucial to

seeing transformation towards pedestrian

oriented development on the ground.

A strategic approach

There are a growing number of cities that

are strategically investing in parking

facilities to unlock development potential

and achieve a pedestrian oriented built

form. These city builders are showing

increasing levels of leadership and taking

on both the economic risks and rewards

associated with building their own high

density parking facilities. However, these

progressive approaches to city building are

largely present in a downtown context and

efforts remain slow and less coordinated in

a commercial office park context. It will be

important that similar efforts are applied to

lower density suburban areas into the

future.

11 | P a g e

Supply: Reduce the supply of

parking

Design: Better parking design

Demand: Reduce demand for

parking

Finance: Find innovative ways

to pay for high density parking

infrastructure

Manage: Manage parking as a

long term asset

Parking authorities

Parking pricing

Cash-in-Lieu

TIF’s/TIEG’s

Municipal Capital

Investment

Transit

Commuter

Incentives

Ride Share

Design Guidelines

Reduce Stall Dimension

Vegetate Parking Lots

Site Plans

Parking Maximums

Parking Caps

Shared Parking

Five Strategy Areas Strategies Examined

12 | P a g e

Reduce the supply of

parking Municipal regulations play a key role in

achieving higher density and mixed use

development in cities. Regulations heavily

influence the location of commercial growth

and generally specify the amount of vehicle

parking to be associated with this growth.

Yet traditionally, parking provision has often

been based on peak demand, rather than

parking required on a typical day. If a

municipality adopts overly generous parking

requirements, this will inadvertently lead to

urban expansion and sprawl and greater

land areas will be occupied by parking

spaces. Municipal regulations must be

mindful of this responsibility and be able to

balance citywide aims of intensification with

local development feasibility, land

ownership patterns, site and neighbourhood

characteristics, location features and market

conditions.

Integrating Transportation and Land Use

Policies

City builders across North America are

widely promoting compact and pedestrian

oriented cities, yet at the same time

sprawling developments and surface

parking lots are enabled through municipal

planning regulations. More specifically,

planning policies have often facilitated

significant decentralization of the office

market. The Greater Toronto Area’s (GTA)

‘905’ suburban office market provides a

third of the region’s office space (66-million

sq. ft – more office space than in Calgary

and Edmonton combined) and employs over

325,000 office workers, but provides limited

or no public transit connectivity. This lack of

integration between transportation and land

use planning is compounding gridlock

across the GTA. Creating stronger

integration between land use planning and

The City of London in Ontario and the City of Regina in

Saskatchewan both have impressive skylines for cities of their

relative sizes. This is partly due to municipal policies directing

large scale office growth to their downtown cores, creating a

more centralized and pedestrian oriented downtown.

A new portion of LRT line was constructed in Pittsburgh,

thanks in large part to private sector sponsorship. Riders can

now travel from Gateway to Allegheny for free.

In 2010, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania sent out a worldwide

appeal to find private investors willing to invest in Pittsburgh’s

transit system in exchange for development rights. The Urban

Redevelopment Authority (acting as an agent for assembling

properties for the County) offered private entities the right to

develop land along the routes. At the time of writing this report

the full extent and design plans remained confidential, however

this provides an example of land-for-transit offer.

Also stemming from this process, a 2 km extension of North Shore

‘T’ Line was constructed and two new stations were built to

service two arenas and associated entertainment facilities in

Pittsburgh. This project occurred thanks in large part to

sponsorship from the Pittsburgh Steelers, Rivers Casino, ALCO

Parking Corporation and the Stadium Authority of the City of

Pittsburgh. Today, Pittsburgh patrons are able to ride for free on

the recently completed portion of the North Shore Line, allowing

access to the two arena facilities from the downtown.

13 | P a g e

“We had a prospective tenant that wanted to locate in our city centre, but they chose not to because of the parking requirements, as we [the municipality]

set Parking Maximums to bring down the amount of parking in the core, they ended up moving to one of

our suburban office parks.” Municipal Transportation Expert

transportation planning will be crucial to the

strength of urban regions.

Feedback from Development

Community: Higher levels of integration

between municipal departments would be

welcomed by private developers. Many

interviewees reported that they often

receive conflicting advice from different

municipal departments, which creates

frustrations and a lack of trust during the

approvals process.

Limiting Parking Provision

Municipalities can control the amount of

surface area being used for parking by

setting limits on the total amount of parking

spaces per development ‘Parking

Maximums,’ or in a certain area ‘Parking

Caps’. Such regulations require research

and planning efforts by the municipality to

ensure that the restriction is appropriate and

would not hinder development opportunities,

but if done properly, these strategies can be

very successful in minimizing the land area

used for parking and encouraging use of

public transportation. Effectiveness of these

strategies would be maximized if

neighbouring municipalities adopted a

similar approach and worked together to

limit surface parking regionally.

Feedback from Development

Community:

Developers held highly divergent views on

parking provision. Some developers felt that

the local municipality was “forcing them to

overbuild parking,” while another

respondent commented that “parking

requirements are forcing us to under-build

parking.”

A gap also exists between the requirements

of planning authorities and demands of

future tenants, and the developer is

generally stuck in the middle. Reluctance

from developers to reduce parking

requirements is largely driven by a very real

fear that they will not be able to secure

tenants without a high ratio of parking. In

response, some developers said that they

would be grateful for Parking Maximums, as

it levels the playing field and means they

simply cannot meet unrealistic demands for

parking.

Developers also expressed that if

municipalities do work to limit the supply of

parking, they may want to come up with

other ways to support new developments,

e.g. investing in improved transit and

upgrading the public realm. Municipalities

must also understand that they are taking

some risk by limiting parking provision, as in

some instances developers said that if they

cannot provide the amount of parking they

want to provide, they could go elsewhere.

Shared Parking

Shared Parking can significantly improve

the economics of constructing new parking

by supporting multiple uses and a greater

turnover of users each day. Shared parking

is based upon the concept of using the

same parking spaces for two or more

different land uses that require parking at

different times of the day. If payment

charges are placed on parking, this higher

turnover can increase revenue generated by

the facility. Shared parking arrangements

could also reduce the amount of land

devoted to parking, which would in turn

14 | P a g e

decrease costs for developers, create more

opportunities for mixed use development

and allow for creative site planning and

landscaping.

Shared parking could be administered

formally, through municipal zoning

regulations or by-laws. Regulations could

allow shared parking to meet minimum

parking requirements for uses located within

the same lot or building and also permit off-

site shared parking arrangements to meet

on-site parking requirements for

complementary uses within a defined area.

Alternatively, with the support of the

municipality, less formal arrangements

could be implemented through agreements

between individual developers and land

owners.

Opportunities for shared parking are

growing as we see a rise in mixed use

developments. One developer interviewed

was engaged in a large scale

redevelopment that included commercial,

retail and office components. This firm was

incorporating shared parking into their

development to provide lower parking rates,

but maximize use of the parking supply at

all times of the day.

Feedback from Development

Community: The development community

expressed concerns over marketability if

they did not provide onsite parking. They

also noted that formal partnerships could

place longer term constraints on their site’s

development potential. Yet at the same

time, developers generally welcomed

opportunities to intensify development of

their sites. Overall, there was consensus

that shared parking would need to be

considered on a site by site basis taking

local circumstances into account, such as

access options and critical mass.

Making full use of existing parking for shared uses prevents the

need for new parking which can be expensive and land-

consuming.

The Markham Centre parking strategy has reduced the parking

requirement for office uses, introduced parking maximums and

requires a significant portion of parking to be provided within

structures. This case study is discussed on page 28.

Vancouver’s Transportation Plan capped downtown parking

provision at 1997 levels. These Parking Maximums have continued

to be reduced over time. These strategies have been supported by

major transit investments, such as the Canada Line and

improvements to the public realm and cycling infrastructure.

15 | P a g e

Better parking design Guidelines and Standards to Improve

Parking Design and Aesthetics

Municipalities and developers can

encourage high quality and more efficient

design of parking lots, preventing the

“deleterious visual effects” 13 of surface

parking. Municipalities could develop

Design Guidelines to improve the design

response of new development applications.

For example, these guidelines could

influence the position of a building on a site

to promote better pedestrian access.

Regulations could also be developed to

allow for reduced stall dimensions

creating more compact car spaces,

reducing the overall area of land required

for parking. Vegetating surface parking

lots also has the potential to improve their

ecological and aesthetic qualities. If

structured parking is developed, it can also

be sensitively designed to engage with its

surroundings and accommodate ecological

design features.

Feedback from Development

Community: Developers welcomed cost

effective strategies to improve quality of

design. Developers were particularly

supportive of the idea of reduced parking

lot dimensions. However, they cautioned

that creating design guidelines could

increase the construction and development

costs associated with a proposal and it is

important that these guidelines do not

impact development feasibility.

13

Feitelson, E., and Rotem, O. 2004. The case for taxing surface parking. Transportation Research Part D, 9: 319-333. Pg.320.

Reducing parking lot dimensions can decrease the land area required

to support parking, it can also encourage the use of smaller vehicles.

The City of Vancouver is encouraging lower emitting and smaller

vehicles by providing free scooter parking. The City also has a Pay-by-

phone option for meter parking providing drivers with the choice of

cash free transactions through technology.

Efficient multi parking solutions can also reduce land areas needed to

support parking and maximize areas of underground parking. Use of

valet parking, particularly during busy periods can also have the

similar result.

Strategically sloped vegetated strips (bioswales) are a better option than

conventional grassy parking islands for collecting storm water runoff.

This can improve the ecological response of surface parking.

16 | P a g e

Better Site Design to Allow for

Pedestrian Accessibility and Future

Intensification

Collectively, the design of individual

commercial office buildings has a major

impact on the evolution of neighbourhoods.

In the past, commercial office buildings

have often been centrally sited and are

surrounded by surface parking. This layout

makes it difficult to access the building on

foot and can create real challenges for

intensifying or retrofitting the site into the

future. Municipalities do have opportunities

to influence the design of the site from the

outset to ensure that even lower density,

single use neighbourhoods can transition

toward becoming more pedestrian

oriented.

In Ontario, the Site Plan Approval process

examines design and technical aspects of

a proposed development to ensure

compliance with municipal requirements,

standards and objectives. Site Plan

applications are reviewed with respect to a

range of considerations, but specifically

transportation, transit, urban design,

landscaping, accessibility and

environmental conservation. This process

therefore provides municipalities with a

significant opportunity to influence the

placement of a proposed development and

the way it interacts with its surrounds.

Feedback from Development

Community: Developers welcomed the

opportunity to work through design issues

with municipalities from the outset of their

application through the site approvals

processes. Developers stated a preference

for dealing with design issues at the

beginning of an application process, rather

than mid-way through or towards the end

of the process.

Many office buildings in commercial office parks are not sited in a

way that will allow for easy pedestrian access and support future

retrofitting or intensification opportunities.

Rather, office building could be positioned from the outset in ways

that would allow for greater pedestrian access and future

intensification. This could occur through the site planning process.

USA’s Santa Monica Civic Centre is not only an attractive design,

it’s also the first LEED-certified parking garage.

17 | P a g e

“Suburban areas need to recognize that transit cannot solve all of their problems…a business park

can reduce 25% of trips through moderate TDM effort.’

- North American Transportation Specialist

Reduce parking demand Changing behaviour and encouraging

commuters to consider alternatives to the

personal vehicle can help reduce parking

demand. While reducing demand does not

directly contribute to the development of

high density parking structures, it does

minimize the need for parking spaces and

hence can contribute to pedestrianization of

the public realm and/or reduce parking

construction costs. In some instances,

reducing parking demand has been so

successful that surface parking lots have

been redeveloped for higher and better

uses. The suite of policies applied to reduce

parking demand is known as Transportation

Demand Management (TDM) strategies.

Transportation Demand Management

(TDM) Traditionally, transportation strategies have

addressed increased demand for parking by

supplying more parking. However, TDM

departs from this approach and focuses on

reducing the demand for parking by

reducing the number of single occupancy

vehicles trips. Public and multi-modal

transit is likely to be the most popular and

well known TDM option. Yet TDM includes a

wide range of strategies to create and

motivate people to utilize a diverse range of

access options.

Incentives can be provided to reduce

employee demand for parking. One way to

do this is known as ‘cashing out’ – offering

employees a sum (say $50 per month) for

not using a parking space on site, which

according to Litman (2006) typically reduces

Power Stream’s Vanpooling

Power Stream’s van pooling program allowed for 35 employee

vehicles to be replaced with four vans; reducing fuel costs,

emissions and car parking spaces required to support the

workforce. Vanpools service different areas within the northern

part of the GTA and connect the company’s head office in Vaughan,

and operations centre in Markham.

Car Sharing Programs

To prevent the need for individuals to drive a personal vehicle to

work, car share vehicle/s could be integrated into office parking

lots. This would allow for employees to have access to a car during

the day to attend meetings etc and support other TDM measures.

Hatch Ltd’s Commuter Incentives:

Hatch Consulting adopted a range of TDM measures to address its

onsite parking shortages. These included subsidies for car pooling

and bike use, as well as working with the City of Mississauga and

Mississauga Transit to a revise bus route to allow for better access.

This program was successful at reducing the number of single

vehicle trips to the office.

18 | P a g e

parking requirements by 20%.14 This could

theoretically free up land for more intensive

development. Ride sharing and van

pooling has also been highly successful at

reducing traffic congestion. Cycling is also

growing as a viable option in suburban

areas. These approaches are simple but

highly effective ways to not only reduce the

need for parking but also save money,

reduce congestion, conserve energy and

promote healthier lifestyles.

Feedback from Development

Community: On average, developers were

highly supportive of TDM strategies –

particularly transit investment. Yet many

voiced apprehensions about designing new

developments in anticipation of transit,

holding concerns that the proposed transit

may never materialize. Some interviewees

even recalled instances of working closely

with municipalities and transit authorities to

integrate their new developments with

proposed transit routes that ultimately never

came to fruition.

Developers generally expressed support for

other TDM measures, such as van/car

pooling. However, they frequently discussed

a reluctance to integrate these measures

into suburban projects, believing they would

be premature due to a strong ‘car culture.’

Developers were looking for logical

solutions and flexibility as the suburban

areas transitioned to be more pedestrian

oriented.

Developers frequently said many people

want to own a car; it is part of their lifestyle.

14

Litman, Todd. 2006. Parking Management Strategies, Evaluation and Planning. Available: http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/bestpractice137.pdf. Accessed 2012 July 5. 15

Price, Gord. 2011. U-Pass gets people off the road and

into transit. The City Caucus. Available: http://archive.citycaucus.com/2011/04/u-pass-gets-people-off-the-road-and-into-transit.

While developers acknowledged a transition

away from the car in suburban areas would

need to be achieved at some point in the

future, it was widely held that municipalities

should not be forcing people out of their

cars, but providing better infrastructure so

residents and workers have choice. Another

factor noted – which could contribute to this

cultural and behavioural shift – is the up and

coming “urban generation… [that] don’t

want to own a car and have to commute an

hour every day.”

University of British Columbia (UBC) unlocks development

potential with TDM15

UBC in partnership with Translink and the Province of British

Columbia established a highly successful TDM program. This

program coupled the U-Pass (a discounted travel pass subsidized by

the Province that is available to Vancouver’s post secondary

students,) with frequent rapid bus services (operated by Translink)

and higher parking rates at the main UBC Campus. These TDM

initiatives have led to a reduction of 7,500 single occupancy vehicle

trips since 1997 and reduced the need for parking spaces, allowing

for the redevelopment of some surface parking lots.

For example, The Institute of Asian Research is housed in the C. K.

Choi Building, which was built on a former surface parking lot. This

building is recognized for its leading-edge sustainable design and is

often called a ‘living laboratory.’ The university has identified several

other surface parking lots as key sites for future expansion.

19 | P a g e

Downtown Oshawa’s Brownfield Redevelopment

In the early 1990’s downtown Oshawa was in a state of

decline, with high levels of vacancies and many empty

sites that were either contaminated or perceived to be

contaminated, creating a major barrier for

redevelopment. In response to this challenge, the city

borrowed $18M to build an eight story, 750 stall

municipal parking structure, the Mary Street Garage.

Extra funds were spent for the design of the garage. The

municipality then worked at remediating 12ha of

brownfields sites, by generating a land-bank and building

partnerships. The private sector was attracted to further

invest in the downtown, especially since parking

provision had already been met for many new

developments. This integrated approach worked at

reversing the decline in the downtown and attracted

diverse new users, the YMCA, a retirement residence and

a diverse range of new businesses.

Invest and find innovative

ways to pay for high density

parking infrastructure Creative approaches to finance parking are

not wide spread in North America. This is

largely due to an expectation of ‘free

parking’. This makes financing high density

parking one of the most challenging parts of

parking development. Constructing parking

spaces costs a minimum of $2,000 for a

surface parking space, ~$30,000 for a

structure parking space and ~$60,000 for

an underground parking space. 16 To

determine the full cost it is also important to

consider land costs, revenues collected,

operating costs, amortization rate and

environmental externalities. The cost of

parking also needs to consider the highest

and best use of land.17 The public sector

can play a major role in creating the

economic conditions to support investment

in high density parking.

Tax Based Incentives

Cash-In-Lieu essentially allows developers

to buy out of certain parking requirements of

their new build in exchange for a payment to

the municipality. The financial return

received by the municipality can then be

used to finance paid parking facilities in

place of private spaces or public transit

development. They can be considered as

similar to, if not the same as, development

charges. New developments making these

payments are required to pay a certain fee

per square foot of new development to fund

16

As per averages calculated on page 6 of this report. 17

Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2007. Reforming

Parking Policies To Support Smart Growth,

Toolbox/Handbook: Parking Best Practices & Strategies For

Supporting Transit Oriented Development In the San

Francisco Bay Area. Available:

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/parking/parkin

g_seminar/Toolbox-Handbook.pdf. Accessed 2012 July 12.

public infrastructure, which in this case

would be parking.

The cash-in-lieu method is a highly effective

at the ‘established downtown’ scale

because transit is in place, land is scarcer

and developers feel more secure in their

decision to provide less parking. Yet similar

approaches could be provided at lower

density scales, so long as alternative

access options are available.

Feedback from Development

Community: Developers were generally

supportive of providing less parking, if they

believed that other high quality site access

options were available. However, they

expressed concerns over providing lower

parking rates in a suburban context,

believing that that this approach could

impact their resale value.

This view was reinforced during a

discussion with a municipal staff member

who administered a citywide cash-in-lieu

program. She said that utilization rates of

their cash-in-lieu program were relatively

low for commercial developments in

suburban settings. This again highlights the

need for cities to adopt a comprehensive

and mutually reinforcing range of strategies.

20 | P a g e

Municipal Investment

Municipalities can invest some or all of the

capital required to build structured or

underground parking. This approach could

also involve the municipality entering a joint

venture with senior levels of government, or

with a private developer who could invest in

a parking facility as a means of meeting

their parking requirements. Once the

municipality has repaid its debt, they will

continue to generate financial returns from

this major asset. New parking facilities can

foster new developments on existing

surface parking lots, which will in turn, grow

the municipality’s tax base.

Feedback from Developers: Developers

were highly supportive of public investments

in parking structures, and considered that

such investments could lead to increased

land values and development opportunities.

Developers suggested that this approach

would be optimal in an emerging downtown,

where there is transit access, a critical mass

of activity and redevelopment opportunities.

Yet, they believed that this approach could

be applied in a suburban office park where

there was a critical mass of activity or a mix

of land uses.

Pricing Parking

Parking has never been ‘free’ and the true

and often hidden costs have been carried

by all members of the community.18 In 1995,

a national survey of employer parking

capacity was undertaken in the United

States. It estimated that 84% of the spaces

in employer-owned facilities are surface

lots, 11% are in above-ground structures

and 5% are underground. 19 Applying this

18

Shoup, Donald C. 1997. The High Cost of Free Parking, Available: http://www.uctc.net/papers/351.pdf 19

Transportation Research Board. 2003. TCRP Report 95: Chapter 18 – Parking Management and Supply: Travelers Response to Transportation System Changes.

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c18.pdf (Pg. 18-23). Accessed 2012 July 12.

A new parking facility (Carlisle Garage) opened at the beginning

of 2012 in downtown St Catharines, Ontario. This project

received funding from all three levels of government and

provides 500 above ground and 100 below ground parking

spaces. This parking garage is intended to support a new range

of uses, such as a proposed arena downtown.

The City of Fredericton spearheaded the development of the new

529 spaced East End Parking Garage. This facility was

constructed in conjunction with the downtown Convention

Centre while supporting a neighbouring office building. This

garage has been developed with the long term plan that it will

be able to provide parking for new developments happening in

the downtown core into the future.

The City of Mississauga has set an example, by charging for

underground parking at City Hall as of 2011. Modest parking

fees ($1 per hour prior to 6pm) are now being charged to

encourage workers and other patrons to make use of

transportation alternatives that serve the City’s downtown core.

21 | P a g e

distribution, an average monthly cost of

$84.48 per space was calculated. Thus, any

employer who is or is planning to provide

parking for employees could expect to pay

roughly $85 per month on average. The

1995 national survey also found only 0.1%

of all employers charge for employee

parking, and that those who do charge an

average of $62.69 per month.20 Thus, there

is very little revenue generated by employee

parking.

More than 15 years have passed since this

survey was undertaken in the USA.

Nevertheless, from CUI’s research there is

little evidence to indicate that the trend of

employers charging for parking has

changed over the past decade. Free parking

represents a lost opportunity to generate

revenue that has the potential to go a long

way toward financing high density parking

and/or other important TDM strategies.

Feedback from Development

Community: Developers explained that

there were a multitude of challenges

associated with charging for private office

parking as a means of financing high

density parking structures. Firstly, they

explained this approach would not provide

them with the capital they required from the

outset to be able to construct high density

parking. Secondly, developers typically sell

a building following construction, so they

would be unable to generate revenue to

compensate for the initial investment on an

ongoing basis. Thirdly, they explained that

they rarely manage buildings so they would

not be able to implement parking charges.

In the instances where they could, they

believed that parking charges would

20

Transportation Research Board. 2003. TCRP Report 95: Chapter 18 – Parking Management and Supply: Travelers Response to Transportation System Changes. Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c18.pdf (Pg. 18-23).

dramatically reduce the marketability of the

building and not be sufficient to cover costs

associated with their investment in the short

term.

Given these unfavourable economic

conditions, one developer suggested that

this could be an opportunity for a public

private partnership. The proposed model

would allow the developer to build the

parking structure and the municipality could

then purchase it. The municipality could re-

coup this investment by charging for parking

on an ongoing basis. This could be

managed through the establishment of a

municipal parking authority. This approach

would involve the municipality taking on

significant risk, yet the municipality would be

rewarded through the creation of an urban

form that will facilitate more intense and

pedestrian oriented development forms and

an ongoing source of revenue.

Parking Space Levy in Sydney, Australia

In Sydney, a Parking Space Levy of AU$800 per stall is

currently applied annually to parking in the central business

district (CBD) and AU$400 per stall at

other business districts. The levy applies to all privately

owned, non-residential off-street parking. It is prorated for

parking facilities that are used only occasionally i.e. a place of

worship. The levy raises more than AU$40 million annually,

which is dedicated to transportation projects and cannot be

used for operating expenses.

“The Achilles’ Heel to TDM is the

oversupply of free of charge parking.” – Municipal Transportation Expert

22 | P a g e

Monthly downtown parking rates in 12 Canadian cities

Rate Change

from 2010

Calgary $473 4.2%

Toronto $332 -1.2%

Montreal $296 5.6%

Vancouver $288 7.9%

Edmonton $275 0.0%

National Average $236 2.6%

Ottawa $195 -6.6%

Victoria $185 2.7%

Saskatoon $170 1.8%

Regina $168 3.2%

Halifax $167 5.4%

Winnipeg $152 0.0%

Kitchener- Waterloo $128 9.7% Source Colliers International

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/07/13/calgary-parking-rates.html

Manage parking as a long

term asset Structured and underground parking can

cost $30,000 - $60,000 per stall. 21 Yet,

typical revenue (utilizing an average of

monthly rate of $236 per space22) can make

it challenging to support these substantial

costs, particularly in the early years of

operation until occupancy has stabilized and

monthly rates have matured. Therefore

effectively managing and pricing parking is

critical to ensure it can serve as a long term

asset into the future.

Managing Parking Assets

Municipal Parking Authorities are

municipally owned corporations with the

intent of providing competitively priced off-

street and on-street public parking to serve

main streets and neighbouring residential

areas. A portion of the revenue generated

by these parking sites is used for further

development of new parking lots while the

rest is transferred to the municipality. These

parking authorities are typically charged

with enforcing and ticketing their own lots

which contribute to revenue along with

standard metering collection. Established

cities often have parking authorities, yet

emerging cities could consider the potential

revenue generation and employment

opportunities offered by this model.

21

Please refer to table on page 6 for determining average costs. 22

Margot, Ben. 2011. Calgary parking fees 2nd highest in N. America, CBC News. Available: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/07/13/calgary-parking-rates.html.

The City of Calgary adopted a policy that limits the

amount and location of downtown parking. Recent

development has consumed most former surface parking

lots in the downtown, thereby further limiting parking

availability in the core. This case illustrates how the

control and limitation of parking has led to high parking

prices that discourage automobile usage. Combined with

limited roadway capacity, this high priced long-term

parking affirms public transit as an increasingly

attractive option for downtown workers to traverse the

core. Much of the strategically located structured parking

is managed by the municipal government.

“Paid parking is controversial...but it can be

key to paying for a lot of your other measures.” –

Transportation Specialist.

“Downtown Calgary been driven by pricing. They have some of the highest commercial parking values in the country, if not North America and it has allowed their transit service to be extremely successful.” Municipal

Transportation Expert

23 | P a g e

Effectively pricing parking (through a user

pay system or metered parking) is a critical

consideration for effective management of

parking assets and will essentially fund the

creation of the parking authority. Effectively

pricing parking can provide numerous

benefits including increased turnover and

therefore improved user convenience,

parking facility cost savings, reduced traffic

problems, and increased revenues. While

under pricing parking increases the amount

of parking needed to meet demand, and

tends to increase problems such as traffic

congestion, housing affordability, sprawl,

and pollution.23

Feedback from Development

Community: Developers were relatively

neutral in relation to establishing parking

authorities, seeing this as a municipal

responsibility. However, some interviewees

emphasized that if higher rates are to be

charged for parking then alternative access

options must be available.

Municipalities saw parking authorities as

being crucial in the emergence of stronger

downtowns. Municipalities also had a strong

awareness that having high levels of control

over the parking supply and pricing could

have a major impact their success in

implementing all manner of complimentary

parking management strategies. Calgary

was highlighted as a city that has been able

to strengthen its downtown and its citywide

transit system, through effective

management of its parking assets.

23

Litman, Todd. 2011. Parking Pricing Implementation Guidelines. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Available: http://www.vtpi.org/parkpricing.pdf. 24

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. 2012. SFPark. Available: http://sfpark.org.

San Francisco’s ‘Smart Parking’24

Real Time Parking Map for San Francisco

SFPark system utilizes demand-responsive pricing, to encourage

drivers to park in underused areas and garages, reducing demand in

overused areas. SFpark works by collecting and distributing real-

time information (e.g. through the SFpark website or iPhone app)

about where parking is available so drivers can quickly find open

spaces. To help achieve the right level of parking availability, SFpark

periodically adjusts meter and garage pricing up and down to

match demand. Rates will change as often as once a month,

dropping to as little as $.25 per hour in places where demand is low

and rising to as much as $6.00 per hour on the most congested city

blocks. The aim is to have 15% of parking spaces open at all times of

approximately one open space on every block, to reduce the number

of cars circling to find parking and increase traffic congestion.

A further selling point of this program is that it reduces the need for

time restrictions, and in some locations time limits have been

removed altogether. The SFMTA said, “SFpark will use demand-

responsive pricing rather than short time limits to achieve parking

availability goals.”

Saskatoon – The Partnership

The Partnership (Business Improvement District) in

downtown Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, has a portion of

municipal parking revenues set aside for streetscape

upgrades. The redevelopment of 21st Street is just one of

the many streets that has benefited from these funds.

24 | P a g e

Selecting the Optimal Strategies This matrix summarizes the strategies outlined in this report and the optimal contexts for their

application. These strategies are discussed in greater detail in the ‘Case Studies’ section that

follows.

Leader(s)

Reduce Supply of Parking

Parking Maximums

X

Parking Caps

X X X

Shared Parking X X X X Improve Design of Parking Design Guidelines

X X X X Reducing Stall

Dimensions X X X X

Vegetating Parking Lots

X

Site Planning X Reduce Need and Demand for Parking

Transit

X X X

Commuter

Incentives X

Ride Share X X X

Find innovative ways to pay for high density parking infrastructure

Cash-in-Lieu X X X X TIF’s/TIEG’s X

Municipal Capital Investment

X X X

Parking pricing X X X X Manage parking as a long term asset

Parking

authorities

X X X

Municipality

Developer

Tenant

Employee

25 | P a g e

Individual Office Building Good planning is the key to building

stronger and more pedestrian oriented

commercial developments. The research

demonstrated that site planning can go a

long way to improving the design response

of an individual development application

and also increase opportunities for

retrofitting and intensifying a site into the

future.

Improving the design and siting of a building

can create a more positive relationship with

the streetscape and increase pedestrian

accessibility. Moreover, simple cost

effective measures to enhance surface

parking lots, such as increasing the amount

of vegetation, expanding permeable areas

and varying the size of parking spaces can

lead to more visually interesting surface

parking lots that are supported by lesser

land area.

Individual developments can also benefit

parking maximums, as it caps the number of

parking spaces and reduces the area

needed to support surface parking. This

measure can also provide regulatory

support to developers that are looking to

reduce the number of spaces associated

with their development but are unable to do

so due to pressure from commercial real-

estate brokers and/or future tenants. This

measure creates a more level playing field

in the development of office space.

Encouraging the establishment of TDM

programs and a range of site access

options can also help reduce the area

required to support surface parking.

Office Park or Cluster A cohesive vision that is supported by a

suite of complimentary strategies and

investments is critical to intensify and

increase the walkability of an office park.

Research demonstrated that the

revitalization of an office park will likely only

occur when there is strong political will and

high levels of coordination between efforts

to diversify mobility options, enhance

pedestrian oriented design features and

attract new commercial growth. Yet even

under these ideal circumstances, progress

can be slow, as current land economics will

simply not support the creation of higher

density parking in a suburban office park.

Therefore, municipalities would be well

served to focus on encouraging the

development of office parks in ways that

would allow for retrofitting and intensification

of office parks into the future. Design

guidelines and effective site planning could

contribute to these ends. As time goes by

and economic conditions change,

municipalities could then start to use

parking as a strategic tool to encourage

redevelopment of these office parks, looking

to some of the examples set in an emerging

downtown context. These investments

should also be coupled with increased

access options, transit investments,

enhanced design and an openness to

partnerships with the private sector.

26 | P a g e

Emerging Downtown City builders working in emerging

downtowns have been strategically

investing in high density parking as a means

to achieve downtown revitalization goals.

There are many excellent examples of

municipal investments in parking structures

to support new developments, particularly

commercial developments, as it allows for

reductions in parking provisions, which in

turn increases development feasibility. This

leadership is highly commendable and has

created a wide range of benefits for the

municipality into the long term.

For example, one benefit stemming from

this approach is that if the municipality has a

high level of control over the downtown

parking supply, this can increase their ability

to implement all manner of complimentary

parking management strategies. Calgary

was often highlighted as a city that has

been able to strengthen its downtown and

its citywide transit system, through effective

pricing and management of its parking

assets.

Emerging downtowns will also benefit from

strong partnerships between land owners,

tenants, developers, the municipality and

other agencies. These partnerships will help

maximize use of existing parking provision

and reduce the needs for additional parking

supply. The effectiveness of shared parking,

capped parking and joint investments will

increase from high levels of collaboration

between diverse city builders. These efforts

will also needs to be supported through

providing an increased range of access

options.

Established Downtown High density parking is also a costly

proposition in an established downtown

context. Economic conditions may be in

place to provide some structured or

underground parking as part of new office

development; yet these office developments

are not providing high parking ratios to meet

the needs of a large portion of employees.

Rather, established downtowns have a high

density of activity, lots of amenities, high

levels of walkability and a wide range of

access options that allows for the provision

of parking at much lower rates. This is an

important point to make, as reducing the

demand for parking will be crucial to

increasing the financial feasibility of high

density parking structures.

27 | P a g e

Case Studies

Tyson’s Corner, Virginia -

Transforming a Business Park

into a Mixed-Use Downtown

Aerial shot of

Tyson’s

Corner

Nestled between two state highways and

located 12.5km west of Washington D.C.’s

CBD, Tysons Corner has rapidly evolved

from a rural highway intersection to the

quintessential post-war suburban office

park. It is now among one of North

America’s largest business districts and is

the nation’s twelfth largest employment

centre. 25 Tyson’s Corner is a classic

example of an ‘edge city’ with sprawling

parking, car-oriented design (~160,000 car

parking spaces serve ~170,000 jobs) and a

lack of pedestrian connections. Combined,

these factors represent a barrier to

25

Meyer, Eugene. 2008. A Shopping Nexus Outside Washington Plots a Future of an Urban Centre. New York Times. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/business/17tysons.html?_r=1

cultivating increased density within this

suburban centre.26,27

Nearly eight years ago, Fairfax County

launched a two-phase project, the

Comprehensive (or Tysons) Plan, to retrofit

the swaths of mono-functional surface

parking lots that comprise a considerable

proportion of the centre’s land area. The

first phase of this project is to be completed

by 2013.

The plan was catalyzed by the impending

37km extension of the Silver Line of

Washington’s Metropolitan Regional Transit

System. Phase one of this project involves

the establishment of four stations in Tysons

Corner.

While the Silver Line has prompted leaders

to reconsider the diverse impacts of surface

parking lots, aspects of this endeavour

remain problematic. This development is

particularly illustrative of the ‘last mile’

problem, where those disembarking at one

of the new transit stations need to travel

about a mile to access most of the office

buildings. This initiative was envisioned to

embody Transit Oriented Development

(defined as “a mixed-use community that

encourages people to live near transit

services and to decrease their dependence

on driving”).28 However, it is more likely this

phase will align with the defining features of

the more pejorative Transit Adjacent

Development, a term used by California

26

Freemark, Yonah. 2009. Finding the Funding for Metro to Dulles Airport, The Transport Politic. Available: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/10/02/finding-the-funding-for-metro-to-dulles-airport/. 27

Kenton, Malcolm. 2011. Tysons highlighted as global example for smart growth. Greater Greater Washington. Available: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/8992/tysons-highlighted-as-global-example-for-smart-growth/. 28

Carlton, Ian. 2007. Histories of Transit-Oriented Development: Perspectives on the Development of the TOD Concept. Available: http://www.iurd.berkeley.edu/publications/wp/2009-02.pdf.

“By 2050 Tysons will be transformed into

a walkable, green urban centre. It will be

home to up to 100,000 residents and

200,000 jobs in that year.” – Fairfax

County, Virginia. (25)

28 | P a g e

transit expert Robert Cervero. This transit

paradigm fails to draw people away from the

comfort of the car. Although development

still occurs in close proximity to transit, its

design is independent from this

infrastructure. 29 A primary feature of this

development style is free and abundant

parking.

An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan

was adopted in June 2010 following public

consultation concerning the proposed

Tysons Corner stations. 30 This revision of

targets increased focus on redeveloping

Tysons’ abundant dead space and acres of

parking, underutilized connections, and the

problematic ‘last mile’. It proposed a plan for

a new, mixed-use, urban centre comprised

of new residential, commercial and office

space, which is envisioned to function as

Fairfax County’s downtown.

The plan’s commitment to addressing

Tysons Corner’s oversupply of surface

parking, an issue poorly addressed

exclusively by the new transit stations, is

particularly noteworthy. It outlines methods

for transitioning to Transit Oriented

Development and pursuing intensification

strategies where three quarters of new

development is to be within a 10 minute

walk from a station.

The plan delineates eight main districts, four

of which are increasingly dense ‘villages’

that surround the stations. These districts

are functionally unique. Each serves an

important role, ranging from a transit

gateway, an office space hub, shopping

destination, and residential community. All

new development replaces existing surface

29

California Department of Transportation. 2000. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Searchable Database. Available: http://transitorienteddevelopment.dot.ca.gov. 30

Government of Fairfax County, VA. 2010. Tysons Comprehensive Plan. Available: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/tysons/comprehensiveplan.

parking.31 Targets for higher percentages of

office and commercial use closer to the

stations are also included. These

benchmarks were established with the

intent of drawing people to the area, and

spur more residential use further away from

these sections. This residential

development attracts people who want and

value close proximity to their workplaces

and is a crucial component to creating a

successful mixed-use urban centre in this

suburban landscape. Alternatively, it will

increase housing availability in Fairfax

County’s lower density and desirable areas

whilst still being accessible to their

workplace.32

The creation of a 2,300 space underground

parking33 structure at the final stop of Phase

One, Wiehle Metro Station, generates a

metro hub for intensification creating a

destination space.34 In addition, the new rail

stations are already prompting significant

regional investment.

Retrofitting Tysons Corner is also supported

by Tysons Partnership, a non-governmental

organization that performs the vital role in

the remediation of surface parking by

generating civic engagement and

collaborations between the public and

private sectors.35 This facilitation has led to

31

Alpert, David. 2008. Transforming Tysons with four unique districts. Greater Greater Washington. Available: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/1228/transforming-tysons-with-four-unique-districts/. 32

Government of Fairfax County, VA. 2010. Land Use – Transit Oriented Development. Available: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/tysons/comprehensiveplan/landuse.htm. 33

Hudgins, Cathy, Board Supervisor for the Hunter Mill District, Tysons Corner Comprehensive Development Plan. 2012 May 31. Personal Communication. 34

Government of Fairfax County, VA. 2012. Wiehle Metro Garage. Available: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/living/transportation/wiehle-metro-garage/. 35

Government of Fairfax County, VA. 2012. Tysons Partnership. Available: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/tysons/implementation/partnership.htm

29 | P a g e

large scale developments and private sector

investments, including the development of

urban street guidelines. These guidelines

sew together the gaps left by surface

parking by bringing buildings closer together

and promoting walkability (one of the Plan’s

defining principles).

The Plan’s strong Transit Circulator System

combines rail, bus routes, and a new grid

street design that encourages multi-modal

and active transportation. Pedestrian and

cycling infrastructure amenities will include

highly visible cross walks, extending

sidewalks, connector bridges, on-street bike

parking, and bike lanes (sometimes shared

with buses). 36 Bike and car sharing facilities

are to be provided close to transit links.

Onsite vehicles and preferential parking will

be incorporated into the system.

Additionally, a number of commuter

incentives including subsidies for

vanpooling and transit use, deduction of

fares, car/vanpool matching, employee

shuttles, showers, and secure lockers37 will

entice individuals to utilize the transportation

network. A 50-50 public/private cost-sharing

partnership is expected to fund this plan.

Parking is still required to address the

current dearth of viable alternative

transportation infrastructure. However, it is

difficult to pinpoint the ideal interim levels of

provision. As development increases and

alternatives become increasingly feasible,

the parking supply can decrease, and

private developers will become increasingly

responsible for their own parking provisions.

36

Hangen Brustlin, Vanasse. 2008. Wiehle Avenue/Reston Parkway: Station Access Management Plans – Final Report. Available: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/fcdot/pdf/wr_sam/sam_report.pdf 37

Government of Fairfax County, Virginia. 2012. Land Use – Transit Oriented Development. Tysons Comprehensive Plan. Available: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/tysons/comprehensiveplan/landuse.htm.

Balancing these commitments will prove to

be a large challenge.

Another obstacle is securing long-term

funding for the entire project. At the time of

writing this report, administrators of the

Silver Line’s Phase Two development were

still seeking full funding. This phase would

establish a direct connection to Dulles

International Airport, promoting inner-city

mobility and connectivity for the entire

greater Washington region.

Fairfax County has relied on the policies

and practices propelled by neighbouring

Arlington County to glean knowledge of how

to effectively facilitate the transition from

suburban vehicle dependency to alternative

modes of transportation. Located 11km

southeast of Tysons Corner, Arlington has

pursued compact cluster development by

honouring “Complete Street” principles.

Pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and

automobile drivers alike have an equal

share of the road through an easily

navigable grid pattern and close proximity of

transit stations.38

Tysons Corner’s proposed development

demonstrates innovative techniques in

remediating surface parking while fostering

intensification, active transportation, and

regional cohesion. It is still to be seen

whether it becomes a success story or falls

short of expectations, but Tysons is

paradigmatic of how the mechanisms

outlined in this report can be applied

together and at a relatively large scale to

fight the focus on the car, decrease urban

sprawl, and increase density.

38

Freemark, Yonah. 2011. The Interdependence of Land Use and Transportation. The Transport Politic. Available: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/02/05/the-interdependence-of-land-use-and-transportation/

30 | P a g e

Markham Centre – Moving from

Surface to Structure

Rendering of Markham Centre

Markham Centre is an emerging downtown

in the Greater Toronto Area. The City of

Markham has been proactively working to

encourage a transition from surface to

structured parking in the downtown core, as

well as promoting transit usage.

Through the implementation of policies that

establish parking maximums, shared

parking, priced parking, cash-in-lieu

schemes, and Tax Increment Financing, the

City of Markham is actively working to

decrease the focus on the car, increase the

density of development and promote transit

usage in Markham Centre.

Richard Kendall of the City of Markham’s

Planning Department identifies the eminent

challenge for the City’s emerging downtown

is the lack of feasible alternatives to the

automobile. A developing transit system

means parking demand remains high for

new buildings. Combined with a veritable

absence of critical mass and density of

developments, this factor signifies that the

economic conditions are not yet in place to

support structured parking.

However, the City remains committed to

reducing parking demand and Markham’s

shared parking policy identifies shared

parking possibilities among different

structures by determining occupancy rates

three times throughout the day (morning,

afternoon and evening). 39 Instead of

assuming new spaces are needed within a

new build, existing sites can be put to full

use, reducing the cost for the developer.

The Ontario Ministry of Transportation

encourages shared parking where possible,

and similar shared parking standards are in

place for the City of Toronto, Mississauga,

Brampton, and Richmond Hill.40

Markham Centre has also reduced the

parking requirement for office uses by

introducing parking maximums, which in

some cases are lower than they were as

minimums. City by-laws also require a

significant portion of the required parking be

accommodated within structures. 41 This

policy is challenged by the perceived lack of

available parking, increased costs

associated with providing parking structures

and a lack of alternative access options.

Therefore some variances have been

granted in the short term to allow higher

numbers of surface parking spaces to avoid

losing investors to neighbouring

municipalities. Ultimately as density

increases (along with alternatives to car

use) these surface parking lots can be

redeveloped into new builds and parking

structures.

39

Ministry of Transportation, Ontario. 2011. 2.5.1 Parking

Management Strategies. Available:

www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/transit/supportive-

guideline/parking-management.shtml. 40

Town of Richmond Hill. 2010. Richmond Hill Parking Strategy - Final Draft Report. Available: http://www.richmondhill.ca/documents/transportation_parking_strategy.pdf. 41

City of Markham. 2011. Markham Centre Community Improvement Plan. For a sustainable, vibrant and distinctive, mix-use, transit-supportive downtown community (Draft). Available: http://www.markham.ca/markham/ccbs/indexfile/Agendas/2011/Development%20Services/pl110503/Economic%20Appendix%20G.pdf.

31 | P a g e

The City of Markham has also built strong

partnerships with downtown land owners.

For example, the Remington Group and the

City are working collaboratively to achieve a

more active, dense and diverse downtown

core, and not one dominated by surface

parking. Randy Pedigrew, from the

Remington Group, stated that they working

with the City to reduce parking associated

with their developments and confirmed the

importance of increasing density, noting that

this wasn’t for Remington’s bottom line, but

for the increased efficiency of the area as a

successful urban centre.

The City of Markham is also thinking long

term and responsible for managing 35% to

50% of the parking supply in the core.42 The

City’s Parking Strategy contemplates that

the City could eventually control a

significant enough component of the parking

supply that it could influence, through a

parking pricing policy, transit ridership

behaviours. The provision of municipal

parking facilities should help to level the

playing field for attracting employment

opportunities and encouraging the higher

density development of employment lands

in Markham Centre to help achieve the

desired mix of uses.43

Overall, the City of Markham has adopted a

practical, realistic, integrated, flexible and

collaboratively approach to achieve its

vision for a vibrant, prosperous and mixed

use downtown core.

42

Maged Elmadhoon. n.d. Fact Sheet: Public Parking. Smart Moves London 2030 Transportation Master Plan. Available: http://www.london.ca/Transportation_Planning/pdfs/SmartMovesFact_PublicParking_FINAL.pdf. 43

City of Markham. 2011. Markham Centre Community Improvement Plan, For a sustainable, vibrant and distinctive, mix-use, transit-supportive downtown community (Draft). Available: http://www.markham.ca/markham/ccbs/indexfile/Agendas/2011/Development%20Services/pl110503/Economic%20Appendix%20G.pdf.

Paid Parking is enforced in Markham Centre, for

example in public lots outside the Hilton Suites Hotel

Markham Centre is building high density

structures that have high site coverage and

positive relationships with surrounding streets

32 | P a g e

Downtown Vancouver – A New

Breed of Parking Challenges

View of Downtown Vancouver from SFU Harbour

Centre

In established downtowns, land is valuable

and scarce. The economic climate of these

spaces generally supports the development

of high density and integrated parking

structures. However, there are many

promising signs that established downtowns

are able to go even further when it comes to

reducing their parking supply, and in doing

so, unlock additional development potential.

For example, City statistics show

Vancouverites are increasingly choosing

transportation alternatives to driving – more

residents are relying on public transit,

cycling, and walking. The number of people

driving downtown has decreased every year

for the last 15 years. These shifting travel

patterns have created a plethora of empty

and under-utilized parking spaces in the

downtown core, about 7,000 empty spaces

each day. The cumulative area of these

parking stalls adds up to 10.5 hectares and

equivalent to nearly 3% of land area in the

downtown.44

44

Anderson, Graham. 2011. New life for unused parking lots. Vancouver Observer. Available: http://www.vancouverobserver.com/city/2011/03/12/new-life-unused-parking-lots?page=0,0.

The Canada Line (the rapid transit line

opened in 2009 for the Olympic Games) has

been cited as a major reason for declining

car use in the downtown core. Since the

opening of the line, the city-owned parking

management company, EasyPark has seen

a 20% drop in revenues.45

Overall, downtown Vancouver is

experiencing an increase in alternative

modes of transportation. This allows for a

growing number of workers and residents to

be accommodated in the core, while

maintaining or even slowly decreasing the

current provision of car parking spaces. This

case study also demonstrates the

potentially powerful relationship between

car parking provision and transit, where

quality transit connections can dramatically

reduce parking demand.

Vancity Centre, Vancouver

45

Ibid

33 | P a g e

Conclusions Surface parking lots have become a cultural

norm in North American and a typical

component of many new developments,

particularly commercial developments in

suburban settings. This supply of surface

parking is compounding the outward

expansion of many cities and leading to the

rapid absorption of finite greenfield sites. As

commercial development sprawls, the

distances between home and work grows

and accessibility lessens, creating traffic

congestion at a regional level.

This outward growth also comes at the

expense of emerging downtowns. These

urban centres benefit from a greater access

options than suburban office parks, high

density residential development, as well as

a diverse range of community facilities.

Developing strategies to consolidate

commercial development in these areas, will

be crucial to their future strength and ability

to emerge as vital, mixed use, pedestrian

oriented communities.

In developing this report, the following key

findings emerged:

Parking challenges cannot be viewed in

isolation

The challenge of managing surface parking

cannot be viewed in isolation. Rather, this

challenge is inextricably linked to broader

city building aims; intensifying commercial

developments and reducing urban sprawl,

building strong downtowns and urban

centres, enhancing the public realm and

providing the community with a range of

mobility options. As a result, city builders

will benefit from seeing this challenge

holistically, working at various scales and

with diverse stakeholders to adopt mutually

reinforcing land use, transportation and

parking strategies.

Parking strategies are synergistic and

most powerful when implemented as a

comprehensive package

Adopting a combination of strategies is

critical as research revealed that strategies

contained in this report have modest

individual impacts, typically reducing

parking requirements by 5-15%, but their

impacts are powerful and synergistic when

combined. It is for this reason that city

builders must examine and implement a

combination of strategies, as cumulatively

these strategies can reduce the amount of

parking required at a destination by 20-

40%,46 leading to all manner of economic,

social and environmental benefits for urban

centres.

Parking can be a strategic tool in city

building

The municipality will benefit from investing

in higher density parking in a multitude of

ways, as they will unlock development

potential by providing parking to support

new developments, contribute to a more

pedestrian oriented built form by minimizing

surface parking and have a revenue

generating asset into the future. In Calgary

municipal control over parking availability

has allowed the City to strengthen both its

downtown and its transit system, by

increasing the price of parking to encourage

alternative modes of travel.

Public sector leadership is essential to

achieve high density parking structures

Developers emphasized that presently the

economic conditions are not in place to

build underground or structured parking for

office space in emerging downtowns or

suburban office parks. Therefore,

developers saw municipalities as needing to

46

Litman, Todd. 2011. Parking Management Strategies,

Evaluation and Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Available: http://www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf.

34 | P a g e

be proactive and seizing opportunities for

developing partnerships to realize higher

density parking options.

Cities that were seeing the emergence of

structured parking had all benefited from

strong municipal leadership. These

municipal governments had comprehensive

programs in place to create the economic

conditions necessary to support high

density parking through either investments,

subsidies or priced parking.

These efforts were largely occurring in the

‘emerging downtown’ context. Few

examples of this leadership were found in

an ‘office park’ context, yet there are signs

this could be the focus of future efforts. As

is the case with Tyson’s Corner, cities will

likely look at these office parks (particularly

as more and more are depleted) to

determine how they can transition from their

uni-functional, low density format to grow

into high density, diverse and sustainable

economic regions.

Pricing parking is critical to financing

mobility options – parking is not free

For many years, North Americans have

come to expect ‘free parking.’ Yet, parking

was never free and has always come at a

cost. These costs are often hidden, but they

are being covered in all manner of ways by

developers, tenants and by employees. Due

to this cultural expectation of ‘free parking,’

very few revenue generating options have

been explored and even fewer

implemented. However, this is a lost

opportunity and charging for parking will be

a critical step to starting to see the

economic conditions necessary to be able

to finance and realize high density parking

options.

Reducing parking demand reduces the

cost of building parking

By reducing the demand for parking, the

costs of providing parking are reduced as

less land area is required to support

parking. TDM measures will therefore be a

critical component of any parking strategy,

to ensure costs are minimized. Yet, less

demand for parking must be met by less

supply. As discussed, UBC provides an

excellent example of how momentum can

build behind TDM programs and they can

unlock development potential and lead to

more pedestrian oriented build forms.

Regional cooperation is important to

success

The effectiveness of many strategies can be

hindered if regional cooperation does not

occur. For example, as some members of

the development community noted, if a

municipality does not provide development

friendly conditions they may look elsewhere.

While municipalities need to support private

investors, it is also important that on some

key issues they hold firm to ensure that their

city can thrive and contribute to a stronger,

more efficient and less congested urban

region. Across the GTA collaboration

between municipalities will be critical.

New ways of thinking about parking

Overall, it is clear that the economic

conditions simply do not support high

density parking in the majority of

commercial developments. Therefore, cities

must adopt new and progressive ways to

finance and develop high density parking to

help facilitate office development and

directly contribute to a pedestrian oriented

urban form. Cities will see returns on these

highly strategic investments, as new office

developments will directly contribute to the

bottom line, grow jobs and create a more

attractive environment into the future.

35 | P a g e

Appendices

36 | P a g e

Appendix 1: The Actors The landscape evolution of cities is immeasurably influenced by complex interactions between various actors. Many small actions taken by individuals or organizations can add up to major impacts in terms of the way cities

are desired for social interaction and function. Understanding what drives each actor, how they influence city building and where interests intersect can help inform the development of a combination of meaningful strategies

to achieve more compact urban forms. Overall, despite the benefits of pedestrian oriented development and the potential economic, social and environmental returns, this form of growth isn’t the ‘norm’ across North

America. It will be important that more integrated approaches and strategies are adopted to maximize benefits for all of these actors.

Mu

nic

ipa

lity

- M

Interest in Land Development Outcomes Benefits to Achieving Pedestrian Oriented

Development (POD) Challenges to Achieving a POD

Long term interest in land development, aim to achieve highest and best use of land.

Committed to providing jobs, building a strong economic base and growing the tax base.

Aim to achieve mixed-use development reducing the need to travel.

Develop regulations and designate land uses.

Concerned with environmental issues: urban sprawl, urban heat island, water quality, air quality, etc.

Concerned with public health issues, aim to reduce air pollution, obesity, etc.

Highest and best use of land, allows for intensification of development generating more property tax revenue.

POD can grow profile and prestige of an urban centre

Public health benefits from walking.

Can be less land intensive and allow for expansion of ecological systems.

POD creates more functional and aesthetically appealing communities.

Essential for continued growth as greenfield sites will eventually be depleted. Moreover, retrofitting low density neighbourhoods, will likely be much more costly than adopting POD aims from outset.

Maximize infrastructure investments, such as transit.

Want to appear ‘open for business’ and provide opportunities for developers.

In competition from neighbouring jurisdictions.

Public transit is costly to build and operate.

Community can be opposed to intensification and high density developments.

Limited influence over individual development applications.

Concerned when new developments do not provide ‘enough’ parking and/or meet parking provisions.

Water, soil, air quality are rarely considered in economic term, so can create challenges for protecting ecological assets.

Classification at the policy level can be difficult to identify.

De

velo

pe

r- D

Short or long term interest in land development, depending on economic conditions.

Seek land with good economic returns.

Understand marketability and are tuned into market forces, as aim to sell or lease their development/s as quickly as possible.

Aim to maximize profits.

Seek out locations with minimal development constraints to allow for straight forward approvals process and lower construction costs.

More opportunity for generating profit by being able to build out an entire parcel, rather than providing surface parking.

Transit is a major asset for new developments and can increase property values.

Attractive and walkable areas are often sought after locations and could help increase marketability of new development.

Working towards POD will likely generate a spirit of co-operation with municipality.

Accustomed to providing surface parking for commercial developments on greenfield sites and have established business models.

Respond to brokers/tenants who demand ample parking supply.

Want certainty and are generally concerned with their individual development proposal.

Developers follow municipal guidelines and parking requirements, which can allow for high parking rates and pay minimal attention to design qualities.

Developers are not an autonomous group, a flexible approach is required when dealing with the development community.

Te

na

nt-

T Short or long term interest in land development, depending on lease or

purchase.

Aim to locate in an area where they can prosper i.e. cluster with like businesses.

Want access to quality infrastructure.

Want access to quality prospective employees.

Maximizes productivity of workforce by providing stimulation and choice.

Increases prestige, and desirable work location to attract talented employees.

Increases visibility and profile of office location.

Tenants could save money by charging for parking or providing less parking.

Tenants seek out ample parking for their employees and often provide free parking.

Tenants like to be close to highway infrastructure to allow good access and increase visibility.

Tenants aim to be close to like businesses, often clustered in low density business parks.

Em

plo

ye

e-

E Short term commitment, dependent on employment.

Living close to work to minimizes commute time and cost.

Strive for work location that supports lifestyle.

Employees like a stimulating work environment that enables walkability and undertaking errands during the work day. This is particularly true of the younger demographic, who are becoming and increasing portion of the labour force.

Seek out desirable place to work.

Can minimize commuting costs.

Car culture exists and many commuters still prefer to drive.

Public transit and active transportation does not serve many office developments. If it does, it often takes much longer to commute via transit than a personal vehicle.

Few employers have comprehensive Transit Demand Management programs in place.

37 | P a g e

Appendix 2: The Scale and Urban Context Cities are comprised or diverse neighbourhoods and development patterns. This research is concerned with four urban scales, the individual office building or cluster, the suburban office park, emerging downtowns and

established downtowns. These urban contexts are described below and it is important to note that each urban context will respond to a different combination of best practise strategies.

Ind

ivid

ua

l O

ffic

e

Bu

ild

ing

or

Clu

ste

r

Off

ice B

uild

ing

Icon Characteristics Image Challenges to Achieve POD

These high density buildings are primarily accessible by automobile and have a large portion of their labour force commuting by car. This compounds the need for providing significant amounts of free car parking. Lower land prices make it more economical to provide this as surface parking rather than structured or underground parking.

Individual Buildings or Cluster – High intensity building but only occupies

a relatively small portion of the entire site.

Ample land available at relatively low cost, allows for swaths of surface parking.

Limited public and active modes of transit option.

Excellent highway access encourages personal vehicle use.

Employees are accustomed to free parking.

Buildings are often difficult to access on foot, site access designed for personal vehicles.

Su

bu

rba

n O

ffic

e

Pa

rks

an

d E

dg

e C

itie

s

Suburban office parks are generally characterized by wide roads, excellent access to highway/s, minimal transit options, single land uses (no residential development) and increasing congestion issues. Edge Cities are characterized by having no determined or easily identifiable centre.

Suburban Office Parks – Single use, land intensive with good highway

access.

Few development constraints and ample land available at relatively low cost, allows for swaths of surface parking.

Limited public and active modes of transit option.

High levels of congestion on roadways.

Road network has been primarily designed for the movement of automobile with single use parks and minimal pedestrian infrastructure.

Lack of design guidelines generates sterile surroundings that offer few walkable destinations.

Lack of site planning, creates difficulties for future redevelopment or retrofitting.

Em

erg

ing

Do

wn

tow

n

Emerging downtowns are generally characterized as the economic, cultural and social centre of their respective communities. Emerging downtowns often contain educational and cultural facilities, transit access, limited high density office, residential development and many large and relatively unconstrained development sites. Emerging downtowns are increasingly seeing parking being used as a strategic approach to city building.

Emerging Downtown - Mississauga City Centre - Parking lots dramatically

impact walkability.

Development constraints and limited land compel parking to be provided in structure.

Land prices and economic returns do not justify high density parking structures.

Surface parking lots meet current parking needs and therefore difficult to redevelop.

Nascent multi-modal and active transit infrastructure. Battling with expectation of swaths of free parking.

Es

tab

lis

he

d

Do

wn

tow

n

Established downtowns are characterized as the primary centre of economic, social and cultural activity in a much wider urban region; as well as providing high density office space, high density residential development and accessible transit services. Office development often does not include underground parking, yet this is compensated by a wide range of access options. Commuters are accustomed to paid parking.

Established Downtown – Toronto Financial District – In this context land is

too valuable to support surface parking lots.

High land prices, land and development constraints and long approval processes can create challenges for attracting new office development to an established downtown.

38 | P a g e

Appendix 3: Reference List

Alpert, David. 2008. Transforming Tysons with four unique districts. Greater Greater

Washington. Available: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/1228/transforming-

tysons-with-four-unique-districts/. Accessed 2012 July 04.

Anderson, Graham. 2011. New life for unused parking lots. Vancouver Observer. Available:

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/city/2011/03/12/new-life-unused-parking-

lots?page=0,0. Accessed 2012 July 4.

California Department of Transportation. 2000. Transit Oriented Development (TOD)

Searchable Database. Available: http://transitorienteddevelopment.dot.ca.gov. Accessed

2012 July 06.

Canadian Urban Institute. 2008. Mississauga Office Strategy Study, Accessed:

http://www5.mississauga.ca/agendas/planning/2008/06_09_08/Item01OfficeStrategyStu

dy.pdf. Accessed 2012 July 12.

Carlton, Ian. 2007. Histories of Transit-Oriented Development: Perspectives on the

Development of the TOD Concept. Available:

http://www.iurd.berkeley.edu/publications/wp/2009-02.pdf. Accessed 2012 July 04.

City of Fredericton Website. 2011. New East End Parking Garage Opens to the Public.

Available: www.fredericton.ca/en/transportation/NR2011Mar25EastEndParking.asp

City of Markham. 2011. Markham Centre Community Improvement Plan, For a sustainable,

vibrant and distinctive, mix-use, transit-supportive downtown community (Draft).

Available:

http://www.markham.ca/markham/ccbs/indexfile/Agendas/2011/Development%20Servic

es/pl110503/Economic%20Appendix%20G.pdf. Accessed 2012 July 22.

Feitelson, E., and Rotem, O. 2004. The case for taxing surface parking. Transportation

Research Part D, 9: 319-333. Pg.320.

Freemark, Yonah. 2009. Finding the Funding for Metro to Dulles Airport. The Transport Politic.

Available: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/10/02/finding-the-funding-for-metro-

to-dulles-airport/. Accessed 2012 July 04.

Freemark, Yonah. 2011. The Interdependence of Land Use and Transportation. The Transport

Politic. Available: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/02/05/the-interdependence-of-

land-use-and-transportation/. Accessed 2012 July 06.

Government of Fairfax County, VA. 2010. Land Use – Transit Oriented Development. Available:

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/tysons/comprehensiveplan/landuse.htm. Accessed 2012

July 04.

39 | P a g e

Government of Fairfax County, VA. 2010. Tysons Comprehensive Plan. Available:

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/tysons/comprehensiveplan. Accessed 2012 July 04.

Government of Fairfax County, VA. 2012. Wiehle Metro Garage. Available:

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/living/transportation/wiehle-metro-garage/. Accessed 2012

July 04.

Government of Fairfax County, Virginia. 2012. Land Use – Transit Oriented Development.

Tysons Comprehensive Plan. Available:

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/tysons/comprehensiveplan/landuse.htm. Accessed 2012

July 06.

Government of New Foundland Website. The Economy 2011 - Inventory of Major Capital

Projects. Available:

thttp://www.economics.gov.nl.ca/E2011/InventoryOfMajorCapitalProjects.pdf

Hangen Brustlin, Vanasse. 2008. Wiehle Avenue/Reston Parkway: Station Access Management

Plans – Final Report. Available:

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/fcdot/pdf/wr_sam/sam_report.pdf. Accessed 2012 July 04.

Hudgins, Cathy, Board Supervisor for the Hunter Mill District. Tysons Corner Comprehensive

Development Plan. 2012 May 31. Personal Communication.

Kenaidan Website. 2011. Available:

http://www.kenaidan.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=123&Itemid=24

7. Accessed 2012 November 04.

Kenton, Malcolm. 2011. Tysons highlighted as global example for smart growth. Greater

Greater Washington. Available: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/8992/tysons-

highlighted-as-global-example-for-smart-growth/. Accessed 2012 July 04.

Litman, Todd. 2006. Parking Management Strategies, Evaluation and Planning. Available:

http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/bestpractice137.pdf. Accessed

2012 July 5.

Litman, Todd. 2011. Parking Pricing Implementation Guidelines. Victoria Transport Policy

Institute. Available: http://www.vtpi.org/parkpricing.pdf. Accessed 2012 July 6.

Litman, Todd. 2011. Parking Management Strategies, Evaluation and Planning, Victoria

Transport Policy Institute. Available: http://www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf. Accessed 2012

July 04.

Maged,Elmadhoon. n.d. Fact Sheet: Public Parking. Smart Moves London 2030 Transportation

Master Plan. Available:

http://www.london.ca/Transportation_Planning/pdfs/SmartMovesFact_PublicParking_FI

NAL.pdf. Accessed 2012 June 28.

40 | P a g e

Margot, Ben. 2011. Calgary parking fees 2nd highest in N. America, CBC News. Available:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/07/13/calgary-parking-rates.html. Accessed

2012 July 19.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2007. Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart

Growth. Available:

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/parking/parking_seminar/Toolbox-

Handbook.pdf. Accessed 2012 July 04.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2007. Reforming Parking Policies To Support Smart

Growth, Toolbox/Handbook: Parking Best Practices & Strategies For Supporting Transit

Oriented Development In the San Francisco Bay Area. Available:

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/parking/parking_seminar/Toolbox-

Handbook.pdf. Accessed 2012 July 12.

Meyer, Eugene. 2008. A Shopping Nexus Outside Washington Plots a Future of an Urban

Centre. New York Times. Available:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/business/17tysons.html?_r=1. Accessed 2012 July

04.

Ministry of Transportation. Ontario. 2011. 2.5.1 Parking Management Strategies. Available:

www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/transit/supportive-guideline/parking-management.shtml.

Accessed 2012 June 28.

Moneyville Website. 2012. This Toronto Parking Spot Costs 100,000 A Year. Available:

http://www.moneyville.ca/article/1019589--this-toronto-parking-spot-costs-100-000-a-

year. Accessed 2012 June 28.

Price, Gord. 2011. U-Pass gets people off the road and into transit. The City Caucus. Available:

http://archive.citycaucus.com/2011/04/u-pass-gets-people-off-the-road-and-into-transit.

Accessed 2012 July 23.

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. 2012. SFPark. Available: http://sfpark.org.

Accessed 2012 July 23.

Shoup, Donald C. 1997. The High Cost of Free Parking, Available:

http://www.uctc.net/papers/351.pdf. Accessed 2012 July 8.

Standard Staff. 2012. Carlisle St. garage opening Monday. Available:

http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/2012/01/06/carlisle-st-garage-opening-monday

Accessed 2012 July 8.

Town of Richmond Hill. 2010. Richmond Hill Parking Strategy - Final Draft Report. Available:

http://www.richmondhill.ca/documents/transportation_parking_strategy.pdf. Accessed

2012 July 22.

41 | P a g e

Transportation Research Board. 2003. TCRP Report 95: Chapter 18 – Parking Management

and Supply: Travelers Response to Transportation System Changes. Available:

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c18.pdf (Pg. 18-23). Accessed

2012 July 12.

Waterfront Toronto Website, 2012, ‘York Quay Revitalization,’ Available:

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/explore_projects2/central_waterfront/york_quay_revitaliz

ation. Accessed: 2012 November 14

42 | P a g e

Appendix 4: Images

Front Cover

Top Left: http://www.amgencorp.com

Top Centre: http://www.s2ki.com/home/2010/10/20/parking-the-s2000

Top Right: http://www.thestar.com

Middle Left: http://www.pedbikeimages.org

Middle Centre: http://www.albertaadventure.com/2010/07/parkade-paradise

Middle Right: http://www.bharchitects.com/en/projects/96

Bottom Left: http://www.urbanspacegallery.ca/exhibits/walkability

Bottom Centre: http://www.pedbikeimages.org

Bottom Right: http://www.via-architecture.com/projects-communityarchitecture

Page 4

Downtown Toronto’s east end in the 1970s:

http://www.blogto.com/upload/2011/10/20111011-Toronto-parking-lots-history.jpg

Downtown Toronto’s east end today: Bing Maps

Page 5

Mississauga Downtown 21 Master Plan renderings:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=441769&page=65

Page 7

Individual cluster of office buildings: http://www.iona.edu/rockland/images/location.jpg

Suburban office parks: Google Earth

Mississauga City Centre:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3527/3464286478_a11baf2a18.jpg

Toronto’s Financial District: http://www.economicsummits.info/wp-

content/uploads/2010/06/Skyline_Toronto.jpg

Page 11

Scarth Street, Regina: http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-

s/01/17/8e/0c/regina.jpg

Pittsburgh LRT Extension:

http://www.portauthority.org/paac/Portals/0/images/HiResMapNSC.jpg

Page 13

Shared parking aerial: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/graphics/english/transit/supportive-

guideline/2-5-2_1.jpg

43 | P a g e

Markham Centre construction: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotofrysk49/4282847413/

Downtown Vancouver: http://www.openfile.ca/files/imagecache/blog_image/blog-

assets/Vancouver/vancouver%20transporation%20plan.jpg

Page 14

Downtown Vancouver scooter parking:

http://media.greenradio.topscms.com/images/42/07/5e3c273342a0984bf4faab2ddf1a.jp

g

Stacked valet parking: http://www.automatedparkinggarage.ca/

Sloped vegetation strips:

http://www.streamteamok.net/Doc_link/Green%20Parking%20Lot%20Guide%20%28fina

l%29.PDF

Page 15

Jacksonville Diamond Building:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=1058.0

Diagram of site planning for improved pedestrian access: Prepared by the CUI

Santa Monica Civic Centre:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3197/2954164239_313e4e0d46.jpg

Page 16

Power Stream Vanpooling: http://www.powerstream.ca/app/pages/Green-vanpool.jsp

Autoshare Program: http://www.blogto.com/upload/2009/10/20091001-Autoshare-

Car.jpg

Hatch Ltd’s Commuter Incentives:

http://www.smartcommute.ca/media/uploads/images/Hatch_photo_250x333.gif

Page 17

C.K. Choi Building:

http://www.142.103.155.40/Portals/0/Images/CKChoiBuildingNorth.jpg

Page 19

Carlisle Garage, St. Catharines:

http://www.610cktb.com/Pics/News/Carlisle%20Garage.JPG

East End Parking Garage, Fredericton:

http://www.fredericton.ca/en/transportation/resources/EastEndParkingGarage-303.jpg

Celebration Square and City Hall Mississauga:

http://www.cip-icu.ca/greatplaces/fr/place.asp?id=5968

44 | P a g e

Page 20

Sydney aerial: http://www.australiaadventures.com/images/sydney_australia.jpg

Page 22

Calgary transit: http://www.storage.canoe.ca/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/suns-prod-

images/1297199412348_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=650x

Page 23

Saskatoon’s “The Partnership” Streetscape Improvement: https://www.ida-

downtown.org/eweb/images/regina/regina-downtown-streetview.jpg

Real time parking map for San Francisco: http://www.sfpark.org

Page 24

Aerial shot of Tysons Corner:

http://www.americancity.org/images/daily/_resized/6045478465_517460b1f9.jpg

Page 27

Proposed rendering of Markham Centre: http://www.newurbanmom.com/wp-

content/uploads/2007/09/markham-centre.jpg

Page 28

Hilton Suites Markham Centre: http://www.zkahlina.ca/eng/wp-

content/uploads/2010/07/DSC_0431.jpg

High density structures in Markham Centre:

http://www.jarrodarmstrong.com/images/11713/Markham-Condos/60-South-Town-

Centre---markham-condos.jpg

Page 29

Downtown Vancouver from Simon Fraser University Harbour Centre:

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/city/2011/03/12/new-life-unused-parking-

lots?page=0,0

VanCity Centre, Vancouver:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/uncle_buddha/4713947773/lightbox/